State of Vape: New Study Could Dispel Vaping Myths

It should be no secret to anyone who vapes that vaping is an alternative method of nicotine consumption that has been praised in some circles and criticized in others over the past few years. Starting around September 2019, vaping has been erroneously tied to various health conditions such as EVALI and COVID-19. A recent Cochrane review hasgathered several studies to provide the public with a review of information related to various methods of nicotine consumption. These methods include cigarette smoking, vaping, and nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs).

DISCLAIMER: The eLiquid.com team is not promoting vaping over alternative forms of nicotine use, nor do we offer medical advice regarding nicotine usage. This article is for informational purposes only. All opinions expressed within are that of the author and should not be used to determine whether or not you should adjust your nicotine use.

A Cochrane review is the gold standard in the medical field

Cochrane reviews are meta-analyses or systematic reviews that are used to determine guidelines in the medical field and clinical practice. It is often considered the gold standard among medical professionals because they review trends and findings from a variety of previous studies. In this case, the aggregated studies are reviewing how vaping compares to smoking and to NRTs. The international medical community makes use of these Cochrane reviews.

Jamie Hartmann-Boyce of the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom led this particular study. What does this mean for the vaping community? It could mean that medical professionals could approach the topic of vaping differently. In the long run, it could also influence legislation and regulations regarding vape.

Why this study matters to vapers

The hierarchy of evidence in the medical community is largely composed of the following types of studies: randomized controlled trials, case studies, cohort studies, qualitative studies, and of course, the expert opinions of medical professionals. Very few medical studies are classified as meta-analyses or systematic reviews as they require additional scrutiny to ensure their validity and reliability. As a Cochrane review, it gives vaping a huge boost in credibility among medical professionals. That doesn’t mean that the medical community doesn’t make mistakes. Some studies have been debunked and required retraction, most famously Andrew Wakefield’s fraudulent study linking vaccines to autism inThe Lancet. Today, these studies are rigorously peer-reviewed before publication in a medical journal and require scrutiny from top medical professionals around the world.

With a vaping study having been classified as a Cochrane review, this may help dispel lots of the myths surrounding vaping. The fight to ban flavors and vaping altogether is largely based on misinformation and the inaccurate comparison to other nicotine consumption methods. Much of the current discussion around flavor bans and vaping regulation and legislation centers around the attempts to inaccurately link vaping to COVID-19.